Conserving, protecting, and restoring Idaho's coldwater fisheries and watersheds.

Aug 3
Judge Redden Calls Strike Four Judge Redden has issued his decision that for the third time throws out the Federal biological opinion on the Columbia and Snake River dams.  This decision said while habitat projects only specific enough and known to be implemented through 2013 was partially a good thing, the ten year biological opinion (2008 - 2018) has left unwritten what habitat projects will happen after 2013.  And without knowing what will happen years 2014-2018 it was illegal to say that these projects - undertaken to mitigate for the fish-killing Federal dams - are assured to occur on schedule, and that they will improve salmon survival.  Got that? See coverage in the Idaho Statesman and in the Oregonian .  The Statesman analysis is a better take on the meaning of the Judge’s decision, while the Oregonian does get some comments from key players. The Bonneville Power Administration has been highly influential in these Federal biological opinions over the years.  They have steered the plan based on an idea that nothing much needs to change with the dams and that improving freshwater and estuary habitat can make up for the losses through the system of dams.   The year 2000 plan first floated that idea (substituting habitat improvement for fish migration losses at and between the dams), and Judge Redden said no, it is not legally sound.  Why?  There was no assurance the habitat improvement would take place.   The 2006 plan tried a different direction, saying that any improvement in survival, no matter how inconsequentially small, was good enough for the Endangered Species Act.  Redden said no to this plan too.  Salmon runs going extinct at a slightly slower rate is not a way to comply with the ESA. Finally we see his opinion on the 2010 plan.  The 2010 plan was updated from 2008 when Bonneville Power went around the Pacific Northwest and handed out money to Indian Tribes and states in exchange for buying their silence on the dams. The Nez Perce Tribe and the state of Oregon said no thanks to the substantial financial offers.  The states and tribes who accepted money got to spend it on habitat projects as long as they sidelined themselves in the debate over the dams.  Turns out that system of “incentives” was not effective either.  Redden said no again. So how is this strike four?  We also count the decision by Judge Marsh back in 1994 when the states of Idaho and Oregon challenged the same federal agencies and their salmon plan.  That’s the long-ago decision when a Federal Judge called for a “major overhaul” of the operations of the dams.  It basically didn’t happen. Despite this losing streak that approaches twenty years, don’t expect the Federal agencies to change course, let alone admit they could do better for the Snake River salmon runs.  This long, twilight stuggle will continue through this decade.

Judge Redden Calls Strike Four

Judge Redden has issued his decision that for the third time throws out the Federal biological opinion on the Columbia and Snake River dams.  This decision said while habitat projects only specific enough and known to be implemented through 2013 was partially a good thing, the ten year biological opinion (2008 - 2018) has left unwritten what habitat projects will happen after 2013.  And without knowing what will happen years 2014-2018 it was illegal to say that these projects - undertaken to mitigate for the fish-killing Federal dams - are assured to occur on schedule, and that they will improve salmon survival.  Got that?

See coverage in the Idaho Statesman and in the Oregonian .  The Statesman analysis is a better take on the meaning of the Judge’s decision, while the Oregonian does get some comments from key players.

The Bonneville Power Administration has been highly influential in these Federal biological opinions over the years.  They have steered the plan based on an idea that nothing much needs to change with the dams and that improving freshwater and estuary habitat can make up for the losses through the system of dams.  

The year 2000 plan first floated that idea (substituting habitat improvement for fish migration losses at and between the dams), and Judge Redden said no, it is not legally sound.  Why?  There was no assurance the habitat improvement would take place.  

The 2006 plan tried a different direction, saying that any improvement in survival, no matter how inconsequentially small, was good enough for the Endangered Species Act.  Redden said no to this plan too.  Salmon runs going extinct at a slightly slower rate is not a way to comply with the ESA.

Finally we see his opinion on the 2010 plan.  The 2010 plan was updated from 2008 when Bonneville Power went around the Pacific Northwest and handed out money to Indian Tribes and states in exchange for buying their silence on the dams. The Nez Perce Tribe and the state of Oregon said no thanks to the substantial financial offers.  The states and tribes who accepted money got to spend it on habitat projects as long as they sidelined themselves in the debate over the dams.  Turns out that system of “incentives” was not effective either.  Redden said no again.

So how is this strike four?  We also count the decision by Judge Marsh back in 1994 when the states of Idaho and Oregon challenged the same federal agencies and their salmon plan.  That’s the long-ago decision when a Federal Judge called for a “major overhaul” of the operations of the dams.  It basically didn’t happen.

Despite this losing streak that approaches twenty years, don’t expect the Federal agencies to change course, let alone admit they could do better for the Snake River salmon runs.  This long, twilight stuggle will continue through this decade.
Posted at 12:21am

Page 1 of 1